Hi folks,
I have some Aura Teflon capacitors and I need to brake in.
Audience suggests minimum 200hours to 500hours.
I have connected all the capacitors in parallel respecting their direction (they have red and black wires accordingly to audience the black goes to the lower impedance point) as a low pass filter.
My wawetek signal generator can mix DC and AC signal so I am sweeping a 10Vpk-pk sine wave with a 7V DC offset.
I am wondering if this is a good set up for break in.
If anybody have some suggestion, please go ahead.
Many thanks.
I have some Aura Teflon capacitors and I need to brake in.
Audience suggests minimum 200hours to 500hours.
I have connected all the capacitors in parallel respecting their direction (they have red and black wires accordingly to audience the black goes to the lower impedance point) as a low pass filter.
My wawetek signal generator can mix DC and AC signal so I am sweeping a 10Vpk-pk sine wave with a 7V DC offset.
I am wondering if this is a good set up for break in.
If anybody have some suggestion, please go ahead.
Many thanks.
Every few hours is usually to long. The crystalline matrix of the teflon dielectric will permanently stretch, causing irreversible damages to the cap sonics. To provide the smoothest possible sound, you'd better reverse them every 15 minutes, You'll notice the first positive sonic effects after about a week.
I don't know about Aura caps, but speaking of Ftoroplast caps that are very similar...
I had internships on some Russian plants, all of them have special procedure in QC departments; break-in time used depending on complexity of the equipment, i.e. an equipment with higher MTBF required more hours to break-in: the theory states that probability of failure goes down exponentially with time. However, theory of probability is a spoiled lady, also military equipment required break-in in certain conditions like vibrations, accelerations, hot/cold temperature, moisture, that are more aggressive than any audiophile environment, so you may assume your teflon caps broken in if they are called Ftoroplast caps, and have some special break-in marks, like a rhombus or a star stamped on it.
I had internships on some Russian plants, all of them have special procedure in QC departments; break-in time used depending on complexity of the equipment, i.e. an equipment with higher MTBF required more hours to break-in: the theory states that probability of failure goes down exponentially with time. However, theory of probability is a spoiled lady, also military equipment required break-in in certain conditions like vibrations, accelerations, hot/cold temperature, moisture, that are more aggressive than any audiophile environment, so you may assume your teflon caps broken in if they are called Ftoroplast caps, and have some special break-in marks, like a rhombus or a star stamped on it.
Why is it that those that can not hear always comment first when a guy asks a question like this? Just solder them in and let the system play music. You will notice then get worse after the first 100 hours, but they will gradually become coherent again and steadily improve with use. Teflon is the only cap to use as a coupling cap, IMO
Hi sorry....this seems to be a little bit complex.
I have stopped the burning in process since I am not yet sure of how to properly burn them in.
I have let them "cook" for few hours on one direction.
My thought are the following:
If I am going to use them on the actual circuit as coupling caps, and respect polarity i.e. outer foil to the lowest impedance point, they will block DC which will be always the same so I don't understand what is the point of changing polarity.
SY suggested to reverse the cap every 15 minutes but
1) this means to stare at the caps for a couple of weeks and this is almost impossible and I don't know how many people have actually done that
2)reversing the cap would put the outer foil one time to the lowest impedance point (suggested direction) and another time not....I don't know if this is good or not.
I don't know if yuo meant to say, that I shuld alternate the polarity of the DC offet.
I do agree with curly wood...but I don't know now....
why should i break them in changing all these polarity and then when the cap will be soldered on the circuit will work on only one direciton? huummm I am a bit confused and I wouldn't like to ruin the potential of these wonderful and expensive caps.
thank you all for your posts
I have stopped the burning in process since I am not yet sure of how to properly burn them in.
I have let them "cook" for few hours on one direction.
My thought are the following:
If I am going to use them on the actual circuit as coupling caps, and respect polarity i.e. outer foil to the lowest impedance point, they will block DC which will be always the same so I don't understand what is the point of changing polarity.
SY suggested to reverse the cap every 15 minutes but
1) this means to stare at the caps for a couple of weeks and this is almost impossible and I don't know how many people have actually done that
2)reversing the cap would put the outer foil one time to the lowest impedance point (suggested direction) and another time not....I don't know if this is good or not.
I don't know if yuo meant to say, that I shuld alternate the polarity of the DC offet.
I do agree with curly wood...but I don't know now....
why should i break them in changing all these polarity and then when the cap will be soldered on the circuit will work on only one direciton? huummm I am a bit confused and I wouldn't like to ruin the potential of these wonderful and expensive caps.
thank you all for your posts
Please guys don't get into an argument for this.
Anyways can you explain what you mean by reverse your cap?
Do you mean change polarity of the DC offset or changing the direction of the cap?
I would think that the cap should keep the same direction and in case change polarity of the DC....but then....the real circuit has the same DC offet, thus real condition of use are fixed also because if it would change polarity each few hours...I mean I would call that circuit a bit unstable
Stefano, you posted your question in a wrong section of the forum. Didn't you notice that we have now "Tweakers Sanctuary" and if those 3 guys start messing with you again, you can probably report their posts to moderators
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=77
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=77
I would just install them in the amplifier where they will be used, under the exact conditions they will experience in normal operation.
I'm also one of those deluded audiophile/engineer types who prefers teflon dielectric and tinfoil caps to most other caps he has heard. Very unfortunate because while the ears are happy the wallet really isn't.
About 20yrs ago I ran a controlled experiment, yes a real ABX test with closely matched capacitors having differing dielectrics. I remember comparing the CDE WMF to the (REL made) RTX and I was able to reliably discern the difference between these two caps with almost 100% repeatability. (As were most of the listening panel) I much later performed the same experiment between the RTX and the TFT with much the same results.
Five years ago when I designed and built the amplifier I currently use I spent months trying to find coupling caps that did not impart their character on the sound. (Those paper in oil foil types are very colored IMO, as are most film types.) I ended up with teflon types in the end, and those were ultimately replaced by a set of Vcaps that I received for a review I wrote for Positive Feedback. They were audibly better - so they stayed and I make no apologies for the differences I heard.
Edit: IMO Peter is right..
I'm also one of those deluded audiophile/engineer types who prefers teflon dielectric and tinfoil caps to most other caps he has heard. Very unfortunate because while the ears are happy the wallet really isn't.
About 20yrs ago I ran a controlled experiment, yes a real ABX test with closely matched capacitors having differing dielectrics. I remember comparing the CDE WMF to the (REL made) RTX and I was able to reliably discern the difference between these two caps with almost 100% repeatability. (As were most of the listening panel) I much later performed the same experiment between the RTX and the TFT with much the same results.
Five years ago when I designed and built the amplifier I currently use I spent months trying to find coupling caps that did not impart their character on the sound. (Those paper in oil foil types are very colored IMO, as are most film types.) I ended up with teflon types in the end, and those were ultimately replaced by a set of Vcaps that I received for a review I wrote for Positive Feedback. They were audibly better - so they stayed and I make no apologies for the differences I heard.
Edit: IMO Peter is right..
Last edited:
That would be me. SY is stone deaf, don't listen to him.
I can sell you a computerized device that is optimally reversing the polarity, so you can get some sleep during the breakdown weeks. This device won't be cheap, but the sonic results will be amazing.
He has audio hallucinations, sometimes. For example, during BAF he claimed that some speakers looking like plumber's pipes produced Doppler effect, also he told me that my speakers were crossed over around 7 kilohertz, and he heard some peaks on that frequency.
kevinkr, it is probably very important to break-in the teflon caps. I am now using TFT in the Vendetta phono stage, and I found break-in useful. If I were to experiment, I might try cryoing the caps to reduce the break-in time.
We normally break-in with a 700Hz or so square wave generator, for up to 30 days.
We normally break-in with a 700Hz or so square wave generator, for up to 30 days.
Cryoing a cap as a whole, really? I see some point about cryoing solid materials like copper, but a whole cap? That could cause damage to its plastic housing or other parts of its mechanical structure due to thermal stress.
Have fun, Hannes
- Status
- Not open for further replies.